Attorneys: court filings: artificial intelligence.
If enacted, AB 2811 will add Section 6068.1 to the Business and Professions Code, thereby modifying existing laws governing the conduct of attorneys. It will require legal professionals to disclose their use of AI in document preparation, thereby enhancing the integrity of legal documentation. The introduction of this bill indicates a legislative shift towards integrating technology in legal practices, fostering an environment where both clients and courts are informed about the sources used in legal filings, potentially leading to improved legal standards.
Assembly Bill 2811, introduced by Assembly Member Lowenthal, aims to address the use of artificial intelligence by legal professionals in California. The bill requires attorneys to execute and maintain an affidavit for a period of seven years, certifying whether generative artificial intelligence was used in drafting any documents intended for filing in state or federal courts. This initiative reflects an increasing recognition of the role that technology, especially AI, plays in legal processes and aims to ensure transparency and accountability in the legal profession.
The sentiment surrounding AB 2811 appears to be primarily supportive among those who advocate for transparency in legal proceedings. Proponents see this as a proactive measure to adapt to the evolving challenges brought about by technology in the legal field. However, there may be concerns from some legal professionals about the bureaucratic implications of maintaining such affidavits and the potential impacts on workflows, particularly for smaller practices where resources may be limited.
While the bill aims to protect public interest, it raises notable points of contention regarding the practicalities of implementation. Legal representatives may argue that requiring affidavits for every document could create additional administrative burdens. Moreover, there may be debates on how effectively such regulations can be enforced and whether they truly enhance the fidelity of legal practice or merely add layers of compliance that could inhibit efficient legal service delivery.